The Effects of 'Powerful' and 'Powerless' Speech Styles
on Speech Effectiveness in a Non-Courtroom Setting

Keith D. Green

Volume 1, 1987

Communication research is helpful in investigating the
relationship between subtle language phenomena and the perceived
effectiveness of the communication event. In this complex
relationship, the effect of subtle nonverbal and verbal factors is of
special and, according to Myers and Myers, relatively new interest
(1985, p. 224). To further study these areas, the emphasis of this
inquiry is on the effect of 'powerful' and 'powerless' speech styles
on speech effectiveness. Specifically, this study seeks to determine
if there is a relationship between the grades given student speakers
by teaching assistants and the number of the power indicators present
in their speeches.

This concept of powerful or powerless speech has been derived from
studies in socio-linguistics. According to Erickson, Eind, Johnson,
and O'Barr in "Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court
Setting: The Effects of 'Powerful' and 'Powerless' Speech," these
socio-linguistic studies found that certain speech style variations
were associated with social status and authority. In a given
situation, individuals with higher social status tended to use a more
powerful speech style; whereas, those with lower status tended to use
a more powerless speech style (1978, p. 267). Power in speech is
indicated by a multitude of verbal and nonverbal variables. Erickson
and her associates identified seven primary language
characteristics:

Individuals with low social power and low status
vis-à-vis the court tended to make frequent use of
itensifiers ("so," "very," "surely," as in "I surely did."),
hedges ("kinda," "I think," "I guess," etc.), especially formal
grammar (the use of bookish grammatical forms), hesitation forms
("uh," "well," "you know," etc.), gestures (e.g. the use of hands
and expressions such as "over there" while speaking),questioning
forms (e.g., the use of rising, question intonation in declarative
contexts), and polite forms ("please," "thank you," etc.) These
features tended to occur in the speech of low-power witnesses, and
their frequent use constitutes what we term here the "powerless,
style of speaking (1978, p. 267).

As the number of these power indicators rises, the speech style
becomes more "powerless" and vice versa.

The ramifications of the attribution of powerfulness or
powerlessness are multifold. If a speaker uses a powerless speech
style, this may indicate less confidence. In turn, the credibility
and attractiveness of that speaker may fall. The speaker may be
perceived as less knowledgeable and less assured.

Furthermore, to listen effectively to a speaker using a large
number of vocal segregates and other powerless features is especially
taxing (Erickson, et al. 1978, p. 268). All of these weaken the
speaker's effectiveness, and since they do so in a variety of ways,
powerless speech styles may be especially damaging to the speaker.
Since the ramifications of power style are significant, it is
important to consider these language variables in greater depth.

The use of these subtle language variables constitute what James
J. Bradac and Charles R. Berger label the expressive function of
speech." They state, "By the expressive function of speech, we mean
to suggest that performed language conveys information to the
hearers, quite apart from the intentions of speakers" (1982, p. 53).
The language variables, the receiver's perception will support or
deny the intended message. In other words, these powerless variables
may transmit information contradictory to the message intended by the
source.

In the basic speech course, such powerless styles are usually
encountered. As speech teachers, we are well aware that beginning
speech students use a large number of these variables. In a
fundamentals class, however, attention is often given to content over
delivery. As a result, delivery concerns are either neglected or
minimized in order to avoid placing more pressure in an already
anxious situation. Accordingly, speech effectiveness should be graded
by content, not by delivery. However, can instructors avoid being
influenced by these language factors? Thus, the null hypothesis may
be stated: The number of power indicators present in a speech does
not affect its perceived effectiveness.

By testing this hypothesis, a better understanding of the effects
of power styles may be gained. Moreover, by investigating these
relationships in the classroom, a better understanding of the
pedagogical impact of these variables may also be reached.

The powerful-powerless speech style manipulation affected
not only subject's perception of the speaker's credibility and
attractiveness but also their acceptance of the information
contained in the speakers testimony (p. 276).

Thus, in a courtroom setting, a more powerless speech style
reduced the credibility and attractiveness of the speaker thereby
reducing the effectiveness of the speaker's message.

John W. Wright and Lawrence A. Hosman, in their 1983 study, sought
to test Erickson's findings. They accepted, with some reservations,
that these language variables do reduce the force of the statement,
hence the power is lowered; however, they raised questions regarding
the interaction of the various power indicators in singular and
combined appearance. They asserted:

Contrary to Erickson's contentions, it is conceivable
that intensifiers are perceived as increasing the expressor's
certainty...a certainty which Erickson, et al., associates with
low power"p. 143).

While Erickson et al. found that intensifiers lower power, Wright
and Hosman hypothesize that they add certainty. By testing these
variables individually, they sought to define and specify the
interaction of power factors with perceived credibility.

The results of their study supported Erickson's findings. Their
results suggested that someone who expressed certainty in their
assertion by not qualifying them was liked more than someone who
expressed uncertainty. The present study confirmed the Erickson, et
al. implications....(p. 149).

They concurred with Erickson and associates in that, in a
courtroom setting, the variations in the powerful-powerless styles
did affect the receivers' perceptions of credibility. The higher the
speaker's uncertainty of his own message, the lower the perceived
power, hence credibility, of the speaker.

These findings are supported by James J. Bradac, Michael R.
Hemphill and Charles H. Tardy (1981), and Allan E. Lind and William
M. O'Barr (1979) in their respective works. All have concluded:

Hedges, intensifiers, polite forms, hesitation forms, and
deitic phrases produced judgments of low power, and the absence of
these forms produced judgments of high power (Bradac, Hemphill and
Tardy 1981, p. 334).

Clearly, these studies demonstrate that the level of powerless
speech variables does affect effectiveness; however, the above
findings are all based in courtroom settings, not on other
communication events. If these language variables do affect speaker
effectiveness, an investigation of these variables in a non-courtroom
setting is certainly warranted. By discovering how they may function
in other settings, specifically in the basic speech class, we will
better understand the process of communication, as well as important
factors affecting the relationship between student as speaker and
teacher as evaluator.

An important point in these studies was the use of a situation in
which credibility was of primary concern, such as a courtroom. Dale
Leathers asserted that in a persuasive situation the perceptions of
the speaker's credibility are assigned added importance to the
effectiveness of the communication event (1976, p. 136). For this
reason, persuasive speeches given in the Fundamental of Public
Speaking course were observed. Disregarding any intrapersonal
variation of intent, by definition the student speakers must have
been concerned with personal credibility in order to increase their
effectiveness. The students had been taught the Aristotelian modes of
persuasion and were to apply them in the persuasive speech. By
observing these persuasive speeches and correlating the data with the
grade for the speech, the relationship of power style to speech
effectiveness was investigated.

For the present study, five power variables were chosen:
hesitation forms, intensifiers, hedges, gesture forms, and
questioning intonation. These hesitation forms include such phonemes
as "uh" or "ah" and such morphemes as "okay" or "you know" when they
are used as a nonfluency, imparting meaning superfluous to the
intended message. Of the three major studies using language variables
to analyze perceived power, Erickson, et al.; Bradac, et al., and
Wright and Hosman, only the latter did not make hesitation forms a
primary nonfluency. The preceding two used hesitation forms as one of
the primary forms analyzed. These hesitation forms may indicate a
lack of message confidence in the speaker. Accordingly, the greater
the number of hesitations, the lower the perceived speaker
credibility. Wright and Hosman focused primarily on intensifiers and
hedges. Intensifiers are those words, such as "very," "certainly,"
and "definitely" which seem to increase the force of the statement.
Although they appear to add certainty, they most accurately indicate
a lack of certainty in the message (Erickson, et al., 1978, p. 205;
Wright and Hosman 1983, p. 149). If the source must use an
intensifier to enhance the message, the speakers own lack of
confidence as to the accuracy of the statement may be revealed. In
this situation, the meaning is derived from the vocal emphasis placed
on the intensifier.

Similar to the intensifier, although superficially appearing to be
opposite, is the hedge. While the intensifier infers uncertainty by
virtue of its over-reinforcement, the hedge more directly displays
that uncertainty. Such words as "sort of," "kind of," "maybe," and "I
think" add a sense of uncertainty over the assertion. By qualifying
the message in such a form, the speaker transmits his/her doubts over
the validity of his/her intended meaning (Erickson, et al. 1978, p.
271). While the hedge forms may be used to acknowledge the presence
of admitted exceptions, they become hedges when they are used to
indicate the speaker's reticence toward the message. The hedges, like
the intensifiers, suggest uncertainty over the message being
transmitted.

The final two variables are more subtle and generally appear less
often than the previous three. Gesture forms are those phrases, such
as "over there" or "like this," usually accompanied by a gesture
which suggests the speaker's desire to resort to physical placement
in order to overcome the lack of lexical diversity to adequately
explain an idea. If the speaker is hesitant in a verbal description
of an event, idea, concept, or thing, he/she will often attempt to
use hand gestures or physical placement to replace or support the
verbal message. message.

The final power variable is the use of rising inflection, Usually
indicative of questioning forms. By ending with rising inflection,
the information is put into an interrogative form which casts doubt
upon the message. While the structure of the message may be in
statement form, the delivery will place it into a questioning form
indicating the speaker's uncertainty over asserting himself/herself
which then lowers speaker credibility.

The choice of subjects was not random in the pure sense. In
selecting speakers, five sections held at times accessible to the
investigator were selected and whichever students had been assigned
to speak that day by the classroom instructor were observed. Although
each classroom instructor was aware of the observations, none
adjusted their speaker order as a result. Each individual teaching
assistant had determined the speaking order prior to being aware of
the study As a result, randomness cannot be claimed, but specific
selection was also avoided. furthermore, none of the teaching
assistants were informed as to the purpose or method of the study
prior to the investigation. As a result, the natural relationship
between the teacher's grade and the student's performance was
maintained.

While observing each speech, the student's use of the five
variables was counted by the investigator. The speaking rate was
ranked slow, moderate, or fast. This rating determined the
words-per-minute figure used to calculate the language variable
ratios. The word-per-minute figures used were 120, 147.5, and 175
respectively, based on the figures proposed by Ehninger, Gronbeck and
Monroe (1981), and Reid (1972).

After determining the number of appearances of each variable, the
language variable ratio was computed by dividing the total number of
variables by the approximate words in the speech, as found by using
the wpm figure assigned to the speaker. By doing this, differences in
the lengths of the speeches and speaker rates were made
negligible.

After these ratios had been determined, each teaching assistant
provided the grade for the students observed. The letter grades were
given a numerical value, A+ = 13, A = 12, . . . F = 1. Using the
Pearson's R, these grades were then compared with the nonfluency
ratio in order to determine significance.

The only additional limitation placed upon the use of data in the
study was that only native English speaking students were used. By
doing this, nonfluencies and other variables based on lexical
ignorance or uncertainty over the language were not used. These are
based on separate factors and, as a result, are not applicable to
this study.

Since the standard significance factor needed to reject a null
hypothesis is between 0.01 and O.OS (Spiegel, p. 212), a figure
fitting these parameters is required here.

After the data had been subjected to a Pearson's Correlation test,
an r of -.261 was found. From this factor, two deductions may be
made. First, a negative relationship, as indicated by the r being a
negative number, reveals that as one variable increased the other
variable decreased. This demonstrates that there is an inverse
relationship between the number of power variables in a speech and
the effectiveness of that speech as indicated by the grade. Moreover,
the r is equal to a significance of approximately O.OS. This
indicates that the inverse relationship is probably a sound one. As
the number of variables rise, the rated effectiveness is lowered. The
r of -.261 indicates that there probably is a causal relationship
between the language variables and the grades.

For these two reasons, the null hypothesis,"The number of power
indicators present in a speech does not affect its perceived
effectiveness," is rejected in favor of the contention, "As the
number of power indicators in a speech rise, the perceived
effectiveness of that speaking event declines." The findings of
Erickson, et al., Bradac et al., Lind and O'Barr, and Wright and
Hosman have been aaffirmed as applicable in a non-courtroom
setting.

An aspect of the results must be noted, however. From the findings
of the study as listed in Table 1, one can see that the language
variable ratios for a given grade varied, some quite widely. For
instance, the spread in the ratios for a B varied by .038. The ratios
of .056 and .018 both appear in the group. This would indicate that
other factors as well as the tested language variables affects
speaker credibility.

Table 1
Results of Language Variable Observation by Grade

X=variable ratio: total variables/total words in speech.
Y=mean of variable ratios by grade.

Grade

X

Y

A

.045

.045

A-

.073
.011
.032

.039

B+

.034
.018
.042
.019

.029

B

.056
.056
.022
.019
.018

.034

B-

.053
.018
.009
.035

.034

C+

.p35
.046
.028
.036

.039

C

.022
.060
.047

.043

C-

.039

.039

In considering the implications of these results, several points
arise. Clearly, this study has shown that these language variables do
affect a listener's perception of the speaker and, logically
following, the message itself. When these variables appear in number,
the overall effectiveness of the speaking event declines. While this
study did not seek to determine why these variables caused the effect
they did, such a relationship may be hypothesized.

The variables may serve to indicate a gap in the message. The
source is searching for words or otherwise considering the message
prior to transmitting it. The receiver, it appears, picks up these
nonverbal cues and makes an inference about speaker confidence. If
the speaker uses a more powerful speech style, the speaker is
perceived as more credible and, accordingly, the speaking event is
more effective. On the other hand, if the confidence is low, the
power is lessened, and the speaking event is less effective.

Since the building of speaker credibility is most often based on
honesty, sincerity, and enthusiasm, these language variables play a
large role. The level of the speaker's credibility based on these
intangible qualities may be most clearly indicated by these
variables. If a speaker hesitates, pauses, overly enforces his/her
message or otherwise indicates an uncertainty over the message,
his/her credibility will drop.

In the classroom, we as teachers of speech must be aware of the
impact of these variables. First, we must instruct our students in
the ramifications of powerful and powerless speech styles. We have
all intuitively known that the manner in which one speaks
significantly affects the listener's perception and image of the
speaker. This study adds further emphasis on this need to be
cognizant of the impact of our language choices and delivery
techniques.

Second, as teachers we must avoid believing we are immune to the
effects of these speech styles. Although we may have a better
academic understanding of their existence and effects than does the
layman, this knowledge does not free us from their subtle influences.
Upon being informed of the nature of this study, after the
observations were complete, each of the teaching assistants commented
that they did not grade based on variables such as these. Rather,
they asserted that they graded primarily on content. From this it is
clear that we must be aware of the impact of these variables not only
n on outside audiences, but on ourselves as well. This study clearly
suggests that the grades we give may be strongly influenced by these
factors, even if we do not consciously use them as grading
criteria.

There are several questions to be raised from this study. Since
the language variable ratios had such a wide deviation in some
grades, what other factors affect effectiveness? It would be of
interest to do two variations on this study to help determine other
factors.

First, the individual variables could be isolated more precisely
than has been done in the past. This could give a more specific
comparison of paravocal phenomena and speaker effectiveness. Also, it
would be of interest to examine how content and language variables
are related. Can a good speech override a powerless speech style? To
study this, a well structured speech could be delivered with
different levels and types of power variables, much like Erickson, et
al. did in their study.

By continuing to establish relationships between variables in the
communication event and the success of that event, awareness of how
effective communication is attained as well as maintained can move
ahead. We as communication teachers will be better prepared to
instruct our students in specific skills, to enhance their
communication competence, and to use their communication skills
effectively in business or pleasure.

Wright, Jon W. II and Lawrence A Hosman. "Language Style and Sex
Bias in the Courtroom: The Effects of Male and Female Us of Hedges
and Intensifiers on Impression Formation." The Southern Speech
Communication Journal 48 (Winter 1983): 137-52.